- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Sharing an experience from church yesterday. Part of it was positive part of it negative. During the lesson the advisor stated that gay marriage is not accepted by the church and will never change. She also went on to say that anything a Q12 or First Presidency says in general conference is doctrine pure and simple. I raised my hand and said that the idea of what is doctrine is complex and it involves not only a vote by the general membership of the church but also that in my opinion it’s personal and that we can decide for ourselves – after personal prayer with the Lord – what doctrine is. I also said that in my opinion it’s possible that the church’s stance and gay marriage could change in the future.
I’m actually surprised how calm I stayed. The rest of the lesson went fine and I’m pretty sure few of the girls noticed that I ruffled the feathers of the teacher.
After the class was over the teacher pulled me aside and told me I derailed her lesson and confused the girls. Simultaneously one young woman who is known to be quiet, sarcastic, and very intelligent came up literally in tears and said my comment was the best part of the lesson. I’d never seen her show emotion before. The girl said to me and the teacher that she didn’t understand how the church can condemn gay people to lifelong celibacy. She also brought up blacks and the priesthood and had clearly done a lot of thinking and research. After hearing this the teacher backed down slightly and asked if Mormon Doctrine by McConkie is official doctrine – and I said no. She protested and said it was published by Deseret Book, as if that is the authoritative definition of doctrine. The teacher also asked me if the Proclamation on the Family is doctrine and I said no because it hadn’t been voted on. That really shocked her. I tried to defuse it a little by saying this was all my opinion and that everyone has to figure it out for themselves. I want to think that the girl left feeling marginally more accepted or validated.
Normally I wouldn’t bring up a “middle way” topic in that setting but I thought that the teacher’s statements with such impressionable young minds couldn’t be left unchallenged. I’m encouraged because some youth are taking doctrine and “what is right” seriously. I’m discouraged because of people like this sister who are teaching my children and other youth. It also makes me wonder how long it will be before I take a step too far get myself into trouble. My bishop knows what happens and said I was inspired to be there and say what I said. We’ll see.
Either way… good for you. You took a few barbs to lift up another person. My children’s generation(s) will change the Church in major ways. Good job.
Good job, I don’t think you were out of line at all. Frankly I think the reform minded among the General Authorities would sanction what you’ve said. I admire your comments and am excited that you are in the bishopric. I was wondering if there were any StayLDSites in leadership positions. Roadrunner wrote:I raised my hand and said that the idea of what is doctrine is complex and it involves … a vote by the general membership …
I have never heard this. In fact, I have specifically been taught that doctrine is not decided on by a vote, like other denominations, and that was the whole point of revelation. I have heard that the Bretheren will not make big decisions unless they are unanimous, but I’ve never heard of a vote by the general membership. How would that even work? Not saying you’re wrong at all, just that I have never heard this. Do you recall anything that has been voted on by the general membership to be doctrine?
I agree…. bravo!!! :clap: I am so glad to hear that you are a member of the bishopric.Unknown wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:I raised my hand and said that the idea of what is doctrine is complex and it involves … a vote by the general membership …
I have never heard this. In fact, I have specifically been taught that doctrine is not decided on by a vote, like other denominations, and that was the whole point of revelation. I have heard that the Bretheren will not make big decisions unless they are unanimous, but I’ve never heard of a vote by the general membership. How would that even work? Not saying you’re wrong at all, just that I have never heard this. Do you recall anything that has been voted on by the general membership to be doctrine?
The best explanation of doctrine I’ve ever heard is posted on the front page of staylds.com:
http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html I do remember in seminary growing up learning about D&C 28 and that things should be done by comment consent (see verse 13). That being said, nowdays we as a church tend to emphasize faith in the Brethren. I bet we haven’t voted on doctrine since the 70’s when blacks were given the priesthood. Also I think it’s worth noting that – depending on your local leadership – you might be on thin ice to say some teachings aren’t doctrine because it hasn’t been voted on. That’s what made me nervous when I came out and said the Proclamation to the Family isn’t doctrine.
So the general membership voted to remove the ban in ’78? Was the revelation just read over the pulpit and everyone raised their hand like when we sustain someone in a calling? The ban wasn’t doctrine, and neither was the lifting of it. They both were administrative policies – as the new explanation and Pres. McKay both said. At one level, “doctrine” is whatever constitutes the standard understanding of the time (meaning nothing more than “that which is taught” or “official teaching”) – but, in broader terms, doctrine is whatever is unchanging or what is formally accepted by the membership. With those definitions, very little is unchanging doctrine, and only a little more is formally accepted teachings. Our standard works were accepted as doctrine “by common consent” back in the day (but not confined to any particular interpretive model – literal, figurative, mythological, allegorical, etc.); very, very little else has been presented for a sustaining vote.
Roadrunner wrote:
My bishop knows what happens and said I was inspired to be there and say what I said. We’ll see.Wow. Thanks for telling the story.
I, too, have struggled with what is doctrine – there’s even a thread here somewhere on the subject. I think more in line with what Unknown is asking, scripture can only be added by a vote of the general membership of the church. I vaguely recall when the second declaration was added to the D&C. As I recall it was approved by the General Authorities of the church and then presented in General Conference for a vote of acceptance (which, of course, was nearly unanimous) and it was added to the “new” editions of the scriptures that were being developed at that time (the ones we use now with the TG, BD, enhanced footnotes, etc.). I remember being taught at the time that this is the process for all new scripture to be added. So I suppose the question then is if one considers scripture (including the D&C and PoGP) to be doctrine.
I should also note here that I believe that there are differences between the gospel, doctrine, and policy but that many members, especially the truest bluest, don’t see that distinction.
Great risk you took — and it appears to have panned out neutrally or perhaps in your favor. I am amazed at how judgmental I once was — I could have have been that teacher standing at the front of the room. I am glad you touched the heart of the YW in the class.
As far as doctrine goes — I know the contents of the StayLDS article. But frankly, I don’t think the general membership or even top local leaders (maybe even regional leaders) understand the distinction between doctrine, policy, and revelation. Of if they do, they don’t openly distringuish between it all to the members. Our culture of obedience blurs the lines and leads everyone to think that that statement of one apostle in conference is hard-core doctrine. And even if they know it isn’t doctrine, they do it anyway because “obedience is the first law of heaven”.
What matters is what people are willing to do — in any context. Academic distinctions don’t matter to the non-academic world I have found.
SilentDawning wrote:What matters is what people are willing to do — in any context. Academic distinctions don’t matter to the non-academic world I have found.
Yes I think you’re right. This is basically the approach I take. My opinion is that doctrine for me is what I think it is and what I’m willing to do. Doctrine for my wife is what she thinks it is. The hard part is children and teenagers who are forming their ideas. I can’t stomach some of the things they are being taught (and for the record I love some of the things they are taught).
Thanks everybody for the input.
Roadrunner wrote:SilentDawning wrote:What matters is what people are willing to do — in any context. Academic distinctions don’t matter to the non-academic world I have found.
Yes I think you’re right. This is basically the approach I take. My opinion is that doctrine for me is what I think it is and what I’m willing to do. Doctrine for my wife is what she thinks it is. The hard part is children and teenagers who are forming their ideas. I can’t stomach some of the things they are being taught (and for the record I love some of the things they are taught).
The question I find myself asking is “if I’m so afraid that the SP will haul me in and ask me to explain myself why do I stay?” I guess it’s because mormon is what I am although I shouldn’t have to feel nervous about sharing a tolerant / liberal point of view. I just have this sinking feeling that one day my middle way views will become public and I’ll be promptly placed on the unofficial borderline apostate list.
Thanks everybody for the input.
Really much to my dismay I keep quite when I see something said that I notice made a few or more people squirm. Usually it’s just read from past apostle or prophets or the handbook that does it.
But it gives some people comfort for absolute a surety they are right. It boldness and strengthens them but only at the sacrifice of others. This could go either way friending in the personalities in the room and there history.
So I guess a limited view is the problem. But having an opened view does bother those that see the works as a hostile threat.
So the question I ask myself is, why do we as LDS tend to see the world a lot more hostile then other social orgs I see and talk too. By a pretty clear margin. Is it the result of craving absolute answers and seeking such a org, or is it the result of teachings inside such a org?
Anyways for the record I enjoy much of what is shared in SS. But one off the wall comment I have found can hurt a persons entire week of positivity depending on how narrow or extreme.
So thank you for extending help to those that need it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.